Only one other Minnesota contest makes the list of competitive House races. Freshman Republican Rep. Erik Paulsen’s seat is categorized as “likely Republican.” The assessments are unchanged from Cook’s prior analysis.

Both incumbents face a pair of Democratic challengers. Maureen Reed and Tarryl Clark are taking on Bachmann, while Paulsen faces opposition from Jim Meffert and Maureen Hackett.

Crist was initially expected to easily win the Republican nomination. But he’s come under attack from conservative activists for supporting President Obama’s stimulus package. Earlier this week, the Club for Growth announced its support for Rubio and launched a television ad attacking Crist.

Pawlenty could be gun shy about wading into local political battles after his experience pontificating about the recent congressional contest in upstate New York. T-Paw backed conservative stalwart Doug Hoffman over the GOP-endorsed candidate, only to see the district won by a Democrat for the first time in more than a century. Pawlenty has since taken some knocks from national pundits for too blatantly pandering to the conservative base.

Florida Democrats are looking to put Pawlenty on the spot. In a press release, state party chair Karen Thurman called on him to make his allegiance in the senate contest known.

“From looking at his record of pandering to the radical right in recent months, you might think Rubio has the upper-hand, but Pawlenty may have learned his lesson from endorsing the far-right candidate in New York,” Thurman said. “Then again, Pawlenty’s pandering to the Sarah Palins and Glenn Becks of the world could be too important to his national ambitions.”

“It’s like a roach motel,” says Phil Duran, an attorney with OutFront Minnesota, who has been an advocate for individuals committed to the program. “People check in, but they never check out.”

Gov. Tim Pawlenty and his Republican allies in the Legislature have repeatedly stated that spending on health and human services programs is out of control. He returned to the theme last week in announcing a proposal for an amendment to the state constitution to cap spending. “The health and human services budget is growing at rates that are just absolutely unsustainable,” Pawlenty stated.

But while politicians rail against the purported runaway costs of welfare spending and slash health insurance for some of the state’s poorest residents, the program with the most rapidly rising cost never merits mention.

Since 2003 the budget for the Minnesota Sex Offender Program (MSOP) has increased by almost 400 percent, mushrooming from $18.5 million annually to $71.6 million in just six years. The program is a budgetary black hole, but legislators don’t seem to care.

“It’s very difficult to get people to engage on it,” says Linda Berglin, who chairs the Health and Human Services Budget Division, and has sought changes to the MSOP for years. “Nobody wants to be associated with sex offenders. Nobody wants to be responsible for something that might cause a problem later on.”

But while the MSOP is largely ignored during budgetary debates, it recently garnered headlines because of the controversial purchase of two dozen flat-screen televisions for the facility in Moose Lake where the bulk of the patients reside. After the purchase details were outlined in the Star Tribune, Pawlenty immediately ordered that the televisions be removed. The plasma screens are now to be utilized by veterans’ homes and the Minnesota National Guard.

The televisions, however, are a fiscal red herring. Even at the extravagant cost of $2,282 to purchase and install each screen, they represent a rounding error in the overall cost of the sex offender program.

MSOP population mushroomed following Sjodin murder

The reason for the skyrocketing cost of the MSOP is simple: The number of sex offenders civilly committed to the program has surged dramatically in recent years. In 2003 there were 199 men (there are no women) being held at facilities in St. Peter and Moose Lake. But in the ensuing six years the population has nearly tripled, with 547 sex offenders currently being held for an indeterminate period of time. Each person enrolled in the program costs the state $134,000 annually.

The timing of this explosion in cost and sex offender commitments is by no means coincidental. In November 2003, Dru Sjodin, a 22-year-old college student, was murdered by a sex offender named Alfonso Rodriquez, Jr., who had been released from prison earlier that year after serving 23 years for stabbing and attempting to kidnap a woman. He also had a previous conviction for rape.

In the wake of that high-profile crime, the Minnesota Department of Corrections began referring all Level III sex offenders — those deemed most likely to commit additional crimes — due to be released for consideration of commitment. In addition, Pawlenty ordered that no civilly committed sex offenders be released unless required by law or ordered to do so by the courts. Under state law, the authority to provisionally release an offender who has met all the treatment requirements rests with a three-judge panel.

The ramifications of these changes were twofold: the pool of offenders being considered for civil commitment was dramatically expanded, and the odds of patients being released from the program were greatly reduced.

“Before Rodriguez the referrals that we were getting as examiners were really very, very dangerous sex offenders,” says Paul Reitman, a forensic psychologist who has screened candidates for civil commitment for roughly two decades. “Typically they had 10, 15, 20 victims.”

In some instances, individuals who have never committed violent offenses have gotten swept up in the program. The changes implemented to the program have also increased the number of people facing civil commitment who have only committed crimes as juveniles or suffer from developmental disabilities.

“We started getting a whole different group of people,” says Reitman.

So what exactly is Minnesota getting for its $70 million-a-year sex offender program? Duran, of OutFront Minnesota, doesn’t believe the MSOP has any credible means of treating patients. He points out that in response to the flat-screen television flap, the head of the program argued that the large-screen televisions were part of the treatment program.

“Then there are millions of Minnesotans every night who receive sex offender treatment,” Duran notes. “Who knew? If that’s the quality of decision making, then you know something’s wrong.”

Duran further points out that residents of the facilities are subjected to rules that even the most diligent patient would find exasperating to follow. For instance, he says, a ban on physical contact even extends to a prohibition on shaking hands.

“Shaking hands? That is a dangerous activity?” he wonders. “Help me understand in what context that makes sense.”

The systemic problems with the program are not a new development. But Berglin notes that primary oversight rests with the Minnesota Department of Human Services and that the Legislature’s authority is somewhat limited.

Last legislative session, for instance, Berglin sought what she thought was a fairly anodyne change. She introduced a bill that would have allowed felons facing potential civil commitment to voluntarily remain in prison until they had completed a sex-offender treatment program, thus potentially decreasing the chances that they’ll be subject to indefinite detainment.

“The Department of Corrections went bonkers,” she recalls. “They just went ballistic. I could not get that bill out of the judiciary committee because of the extreme position of the Department of Corrections.”

Little political will to reform program

Even when legislation has been pushed through it’s proven ineffective in breaking the patient logjam. Two years ago Berglin sponsored legislation changing the administrative process through which civilly committed sex offenders can be released. The sign-off previously had to come from the top official at the Minnesota Department of Human Services, a political appointee. Under the new legislation, the final call on whether a patient is released after completing treatment is made by a three-judge panel. But it made no difference in whether individuals were ultimately released.

Reitman and others stress that lower-cost alternatives exist that would be just as effective in protecting the public from people who have committed heinous crimes. In states such as Wisconsin, Washington and Texas, for instance, sex offenders have routinely been released from civil commitment programs and not committed additional crimes. The key to success: intensive supervision and continued treatment. If the offenders fail to follow through on any aspects of their therapy plan, they again lose their freedom.

“The research tells us that what really keeps these guys from sexually recidivating is being under intensive supervision,” says Reitman. “In reality the treatment model is there for us to follow.”

Margretta Dwyer, a former head of the sexual therapy program at the University of Minnesota, agrees that much cheaper alternatives exist to effectively treat sex offenders. She notes that it costs the state $134,000 annually to keep an offender civilly committed. “You could hire two guards in 12 hours shifts for $50,000 per year, per person and still save money,” she says.

But Dwyer believes the will to have a meaningful discussion about how to effectively deal with sex offenders is lacking at every level of the government. “Everyone’s afraid,” she says. “Every judge is afraid to step forward. Every representative and senator is afraid to step forward.”

Photo: Paul Demko, MnIndy

Senate Democrats are salivating at the prospect of attacking Republicans in 2010 who voted against an anti-rape amendment sponsored by Al Franken, reports Politico. The provision, which was supported by 68 senators, would prevent the Department of Defense from contracting with companies that prohibit employees from suing over workplace disputes — including complaints of sexual assault.

The amendment was inspired by the story of a 19-year-old KBR employee who was gang-raped by co-workers while detailed to Iraq. Upon returning to the U.S., she learned that she was unable to sue the company because of a clause in her contract. Thirty Republicans voted against the measure, often coming up with rather tortured explanations for their votes.

“I think anyone who voted against that has some tough explaining to do,” New Jersey Sen. Robert Menendez, chairman of the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, told Politico. “And I think particularly some incumbents already in a challenged position — it can be very detrimental to them because women voters are going to look at that and wonder, ‘Does this senator stand on my side?’”

But Politico posits that the amendment could also prove politically problematic for Franken as he attempts to complete the transition from liberal pitbull to respected legislator.

“Franken’s amendment may make sense for national Democrats in laying down lines of attack heading into the 2010 campaign — but this is not what Franken needs to build a base in Minnesota,” Larry Jacobs, of the University of Minnesota, told Politico. “Being a poster boy of a hard-hitting campaign against the Republican Party is the opposite of what he needs in Minnesota.”

State Sen. Mike Jungbauer

When state Sen. Michael Jungbauer announced in August that he was running for governor, he stated that God was calling on him to seek the state’s top office. Apparently God had a change of heart.

The Republican from East Bethel announced today that he is dropping out of the governor’s contest. He cited fundraising struggles as part of the reason for the decision. Jungbauer will now seek re-election to his current legislative post.

“When I entered the governor’s race in July, I believed that God had opened the door to a new opportunity and that I needed to respond,” Jungbauer said in a statement announcing the decision. “I believe I did that to the best of my ability, but it was my human pride that made that job winning the race. As is so often the case, God’s plans aren’t our plans and I now realize that the job that needed doing was to learn a lot, listen even more, encourage and even teach a bit.”

Despite that divine directive, there was little indication that Jungbauer’s campaign was generating much momentum. A straw poll taken at last month’s state GOP convention showed little support for his candidacy. Perhaps his most notable contribution to the campaign: declaring that global warming is “pure, unadulterated BS.” There are seven remaining Republican candidates in the field.

In particular, Balz criticizes T-Paw for his awkward refusal to embrace Maine Sen. Olympia Snowe as a member in good standing of the GOP during a recent television appearance. He also dings Pawlenty for eagerly wading into the recent congressional contest in upstate New York and for criticizing President Obama’s address to students on the first day of school. The awkward attempt to reposition himself for a Republican primary reminds Balz of Mitt Romney’s (doomed) 2008 presidential campaign.

The real risk for Pawlenty, as Romney learned in his unsuccessful 2008 campaign, is losing his true voice and his authenticity. Romney spent so much time trying to reposition himself and picking narrow tactical fights with his rivals that the qualities that might have made him a more attractive candidate were lost in the smoke. But once a candidate starts down that road, it can be hard to pull back.

This year, Romney has generally kept a lower profile. The view among strategists is that Romney has been shrewd in staying out of these flare-ups and wise to try to focus on big-picture issues of national security and the economy when he raises his profile. Pawlenty, being less known nationally and looking to attract attention to himself, has been reluctant to stay quiet.

Last week, another Washington Post political reporter, Chris Cillizza, made similar criticisms of Pawlenty.

Will Rossbach and Diana Longrie

This biggest electoral shakeup of 2009’s quiet campaign season occurred in Maplewood. Voters ousted Mayor Diana Longrie after four combustible years in office, replacing her with city council member Will Rossbach.

The decision of city council member Eric Hjelle not to seek a second term also ensured that there would be at least one new face on the body. James Llanas, who ran as an ally of Rossbach, claimed that seat. Incumbent Kathleen Juenemann also won another term on the council.

The upshot: Maplewood’s municipal government will have a fundamentally different course over the next four years.

Longrie’s tenure was marked by epic city council meetings that often dragged on into the early morning hours, personnel upheavals and numerous lawsuits. The city churned through four city managers during her four-year term. In just the first year of her term the burgeoning suburb northeast of St. Paul also lost its human resources director, city attorney, finance director, assistant city manager, deputy police chief, deputy fire chief, and parks and recreation director. Litigation costs grew so severe that the League of Minnesota Cities threatened to kick Maplewood off its insurance rolls.

Rossbach says he frequently heard from residents during the campaign that they were embarrassed to live in Maplewood because of all the drama. “That was part of what I campaigned on, returning that kind of respect to the city,” he says. “That goes well outside the borders of Maplewood.”

Longrie blames her defeat on spending by outside groups, particularly AFSCME Council 5, which backed the three victorious candidates. She believes the union retaliated against her for voting against a new labor pact for AFSCME members earlier this year.

“Unfortunately my demonstrated commitment to transparency and the preservation of our neighborhood preserves and being an advocate of the citizens was no match for the deep pockets of the special interest groups that supported my opponent,” Longrie says.

However, Rossbach notes that Longrie also sought the endorsement of AFSCME. “We have a situation where you put yourself out in front of different groups and they decide which candidates best represent their views, and she didn’t prevail in those,” he says. “I’m sure if roles were reversed you wouldn’t hear her talking about that.”

Longrie also believes that the write-in campaign of Ken Smart hurt her prospects for re-election. Almost 10 percent of the votes cast in the mayoral contest were write-ins.

“It was well known that any promotion of the write-in campaign of Ken Smart would definitely hurt me,” she says, noting that he ran on a fiscally conservative platform not unlike her own. “There was certainly a concerted effort to promote that.”

Maplewood has also been notorious in recent years for its bare-knuckle politics, and this campaign season had its share of electoral sparring. Most notoriously, anonymous fliers were distributed highlighting the fact that Llanas is Hispanic and gay.

While the scurrilous mailings didn’t derail Llanas’ campaign, he believes it did have some negative impact on his vote totals. Llanas edged out his closest rival by just 153 votes — a slimmer margin than in the primary election. He says that some residents who had expressed support for his candidacy subsequently withdrew their backing.

“They wouldn’t exactly share why, but I couldn’t think of another reason,” he says. “I thought the margins that we displayed in the primary would be somewhat reflective of the general.”

Maplewood residents won’t have to wait long for the next campaign. Because Rossbach has two years left on his city council term, there will now be a special election to fill that slot. Exactly when it will be held is unknown, but it’s likely to occur before May. Given Maplewood’s history, it’s also likely that there will be a deep field of contenders. Longrie, for one, certainly isn’t ruling out another run.

“I am going to leave that up to speculation,” she says of a potential candidacy. “But I think anybody who knows me knows that I certainly am not a person to be down and out, to be pessimistic, and to be without opportunity.”

But in recent weeks speculation has grown that Sullivan, a Republican National Committee member, was reconsidering a shot at the GOP nomination. He lost out to Tim Pawlenty in a grueling endorsement battle in 2002 and would clearly be a serious contender for the party’s nod. However, Sullivan’s staying on the sidelines after again considering the race, according to a press release issued today:

“In June, I announced that I would not run for governor in 2010. However, in the following months, I received many requests from Republican activists to reconsider that decision. As a result, two weeks ago I asked some friends to sound out the opinions of party leaders about the possibility of my candidacy and to understand the challenges of a late entry into the race. Though I received much gratifying encouragement to run, I concluded that my business obligations would prevent me from dedicating the time needed to run an effective campaign. Accordingly, I will not reconsider my previous decision, and I will not be a candidate for governor next year.”

Sullivan also stated that he would back whichever candidate receives the GOP endorsement.

The dispute stems from mailings produced by the St. Paul Better Ballot Campaign claiming support for instant-runoff voting by President Obama, the DFL party and the League of Women Voters of Minnesota, among others. St. Paul voters passed a ballot measure on Tuesday adopting the voting system for municipal elections by a 52-47 percent margin.

But opponents of instant-runoff voting, most notably the No Bad Ballots Committee, filed a pair of complaints with the state’s Office of Administrative Hearings crying foul. Specifically they believe that IRV supporters flouted a state statute requiring that written consent be obtained from an individual or organization prior to claiming their support for a candidate or cause. The No Bad Ballots Committee wants the election results tossed out.

David Schultz, a political science and law professor at Hamline University, believes the odds of that happening are remote — even if IRV supporters ran afoul of election laws. “Judges never want to overturn elections,” he notes. “I think they’re barking at the moon on this one.”

Sheehy previously held a telephone hearing on the matter. The complaints will now be heard by a three-judge panel on November 18. If the judges find merit to the allegations, they can levy a fine of up to $5,000 or refer the matter to a county attorney for consideration of criminal charges.

Photo: Minnesota Independent

Minneapolis Mayor R.T. Rybak is running for governor. The development comes as no surprise. Political observers predicted it for months. Rybak hardly hid his interest in seeking the state’s top office. He even garnered a union endorsement for the office that he wasn’t officially seeking. So the announcement Thursday that he had filed papers to form a gubernatorial campaign committee was hardly even newsworthy.

But Rybak’s political gamesmanship — running for re-election as mayor, while coyly hinting at a 2010 bid for the state’s top office — could prove too clever for his own good. Today the state’s Campaign Finance and Public Disclosure Board issued a ruling that the Democrat wrongly utilized funds from his mayoral committee to pursue his gubernatorial ambitions.

In particular, the board faulted Rybak’s campaign for a poll commissioned in May that quizzed citizens outside of Minneapolis on questions that clearly seemed designed to test the waters for 2010. The watchdog agency ordered Rybak’s gubernatorial campaign committee to reimburse his mayoral committee $26,500 in order to cover the costs of the poll.

The Republican Party of Minnesota, which initially filed the complaint against Rybak’s campaign with the board, reacted gleefully to the ruling.

“Today’s ruling holding R.T. Rybak accountable for his deliberate attempt to circumvent our state’s campaign finance laws is to be commended,” said state GOP chairman Tony Sutton in a statement. “Rybak campaigned for governor across Minnesota for months without lawfully establishing a campaign committee and recording his expenditures. It appears that the sole purpose of his campaign for mayor was to provide a slush fund for gubernatorial ambitions.”

Rybak’s campaign countered with its own statement taking issue with the board’s findings. “Mayor R.T. Rybak has been honest and forthcoming regarding his consideration of a run for governor, and our campaign has been careful to not raise contributions or make expenditures for the purpose of influencing a campaign for governor until a formal decision was made,” it said. “The Campaign Finance and Public Disclosure Board has found that certain expenses incurred by the mayor’s campaign should be counted as expenses related to a governor’s campaign. Although we disagree with the basis, we will accept the board’s finding and take action to account for these expenses and reimburse the mayor’s campaign for them.”

Rybak’s flirtation with a gubernatorial run failed to have any negative repercussions on Tuesday’s mayoral contest. He romped to a third term with more than 70 percent of the vote. But will the campaign finance board’s ruling have any detrimental impact on his political viability for 2010?

David Schultz, a political science and law professor at Hamline University, doesn’t believe it will prove significant. “Does he have a scarlet A on his forehead? I doubt it,” Schultz says. “Except for some insiders most people aren’t going to care about this issue.”

Indeed, candidates have been rebuked by the campaign finance board in the past for infractions and not suffered electoral consequences. In 2002, for instance, then-state Rep. Tim Pawlenty’s gubernatorial campaign was fined $100,000 for improperly coordinating efforts with the Minnesota GOP. Of course, he’s now serving his second term in the state’s top office and eyeing a national presidential bid.

Schultz does believe, however, that the Rybak snafu highlights the need for changes to the state’s campaign finance laws in order to increase transparency and accountability. In particular, he thinks there should be more frequent disclosure requirements for political contributions and expedited hearings on potential violations of campaign statutes.

“We still have this incredible opaqueness and lack of transparency in terms of our campaigns,” Schultz says. “This is the kind of thing that should have been caught, policed and dealt with months ago.”

He notes that the mayoral contest was already decided by the time the campaign finance board ruling was issued, meaning voters weren’t aware of the violation when they cast their ballots. “Maybe this might have made a difference to some people in the mayor’s race,” Schultz says. “I don’t know if it would have put him under 50 percent, but it might have made a difference.”